If you have been arrested for and arraigned with driving under the influence, you may be concerned about the result of your case. Perhaps a breathalyzer test indicated that you're indeed intoxicated. You might think that this proof will guarantee that you'll be discovered guilty if you go to trial, but this doesn't have to be the situation. DUI lawyers know very well what arguments could make evidence less compelling or even make it invalid.
One point your lawyer can make is the outcomes of the breathalyzer were skewed because of a pre-existing medical problem you have. Breath testing works by gauging the levels of alcohol present in a sample of the person's breath, but this sort of technology is not foolproof. There are substances it can't filter out, bringing about a positive result. Diabetes, a diet ailment called ketosis, and acid reflux disease can all affect the outcomes of a breath analyzer and render it incorrect.
Your lawyer could also argue that the police officer who administered a breath analyzer test did not abide by standard protocol. Standards differ per state and even per police department. Some examples of these guidelines are administering the breath analyzer test in an area free from radio frequency and awaiting the correct time to give the examination so residual alcohol will not invalidate the final results. Even a cell phone could already cause radio frequency interference making the results not reliable.
A third basis that a DUI attorney can utilize to argue that the results of a breath test are inadmissible is that the arresting officer didn't really get the subject's approval just before he took the test. Law enforcement officials shouldn't forget to point out to the individuals they pull over that they could say no to the breathalyzer test. If a law enforcement officer shows that the breath test is necessary or demonstrates that the detained subjects will deal with harder charges if he or she refuses to accept it, this could be a due process violation and a judge can opt to leave out the evidence during trial.
A similar discussion that a DUI lawyer can make is that the police officer did not have probable cause to stop the offender to start with. In accordance with United States Supreme Court case law, law enforcement officers can't halt a car except if they have probable cause that the law is being violated. It means that any reasonable individual would be convinced that the individual behind the wheel or the passengers are violating legislation. If there wasn't any probable cause to stop the motor vehicle, any evidence obtained from that stop would be inadmissible. This involves the outcomes of a breathalyzer test. It's the lawyer who'll persuade the court that there wasn't any probable cause and so the judge could leave out the examination results during trial.
One point your lawyer can make is the outcomes of the breathalyzer were skewed because of a pre-existing medical problem you have. Breath testing works by gauging the levels of alcohol present in a sample of the person's breath, but this sort of technology is not foolproof. There are substances it can't filter out, bringing about a positive result. Diabetes, a diet ailment called ketosis, and acid reflux disease can all affect the outcomes of a breath analyzer and render it incorrect.
Your lawyer could also argue that the police officer who administered a breath analyzer test did not abide by standard protocol. Standards differ per state and even per police department. Some examples of these guidelines are administering the breath analyzer test in an area free from radio frequency and awaiting the correct time to give the examination so residual alcohol will not invalidate the final results. Even a cell phone could already cause radio frequency interference making the results not reliable.
A third basis that a DUI attorney can utilize to argue that the results of a breath test are inadmissible is that the arresting officer didn't really get the subject's approval just before he took the test. Law enforcement officials shouldn't forget to point out to the individuals they pull over that they could say no to the breathalyzer test. If a law enforcement officer shows that the breath test is necessary or demonstrates that the detained subjects will deal with harder charges if he or she refuses to accept it, this could be a due process violation and a judge can opt to leave out the evidence during trial.
A similar discussion that a DUI lawyer can make is that the police officer did not have probable cause to stop the offender to start with. In accordance with United States Supreme Court case law, law enforcement officers can't halt a car except if they have probable cause that the law is being violated. It means that any reasonable individual would be convinced that the individual behind the wheel or the passengers are violating legislation. If there wasn't any probable cause to stop the motor vehicle, any evidence obtained from that stop would be inadmissible. This involves the outcomes of a breathalyzer test. It's the lawyer who'll persuade the court that there wasn't any probable cause and so the judge could leave out the examination results during trial.
About the Author:
Learn more about DUI lawyers in Orlando. Stop by Bob Parler's YouTube channel to see how the best Orlando DUI lawyers can help you in your time of need.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire